A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 15th 07, 06:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



Jay Honeck wrote:


Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.


Hogwash. Even if the marketing caused all those 182's to be sold in
error instead of the Cherokees, which was not the cause, if the Cherokee
was indeed better it would sell for a lot more money than it does now.
You like it and that's great but you are a small minority. See the
Piper Cub as a prime example. Dirt cheap back in the day, take a look
at your typical PA-18 now, the price is way out of proportion. It's
because it is now known to be the best airplane for the purpose it was
designed for and also why you can barely give away a used Husky.


  #12  
Old January 15th 07, 06:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

On 14 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236.


If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.


Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel
for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night.


Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.

Heck, I hadn't heard *anything* about the line prior to researching it,
back before buying ours. Toecutter was the guy here who initially
clued me in to the awesome performance that can be had for a relatively
inexpensive price in the Pathfinder -- and the rest is history.

It'll out-perform every other fixed-gear, 4-place aircraft of its day,
in almost every performance parameter. If you want to haul four real
people, with luggage and full tanks, there just aren't too many other
alternatives.


At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.

Don
  #13  
Old January 15th 07, 09:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Douglas Paterson wrote:
Hello, All!


The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed
the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche,
they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is
a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to
believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability
of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of
entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either
to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other
thoughts?


I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the
trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great
vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered
but that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that
the tb9 is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful
of gas we ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at
sea level compared to the others. Its a big airframe.

However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for
airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer
cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the
other american brands.

Dave
  #14  
Old January 15th 07, 12:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,232
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Jay Honeck wrote:


After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
or exceed.


It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.

Matt



There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.

The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.

A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.

A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.

For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.


I fly into a number of grass strips and fields with narrow runways and
lots of snow in the winter (well MOST winters anyway!). The Skylane is
far superior in these conditions. Also, I can much more easily find
emergency landing areas when I can see downward. The Arrow I fly now is
a real pain in this regard.

Does the 235 had a different fuselage design than the other Cherokee
family members? I find the Chrokee 180s and the Arrow I currently fly
to be very tight in shoulder width compared the the 182 I owned. And
having only one door that opens the cockpit to rain (at least it is on
the passengers seat!) is a real pain in bad weather. Nothing as nice as
running through the rain to my 182 and then loading up in a leisurely
manner under the protection of the wing. And you just can't beat having
two large doors.

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.

To say that one airplane is "best" is just stupid as it all depends on
your mission.

Matt
  #15  
Old January 15th 07, 12:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Doug[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed, comfort, instruments and on
floats. The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
land short. They are comparably priced.

  #16  
Old January 15th 07, 02:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 603
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236.


If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.


Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel
for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night.


Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.


Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?

Honda spend virtually zip on advertising, but they can make cars fast
enough.

During the 80's and 90's the Japanese were blowing away Detroit while the
"Big Three" were outspending the Japanese big three by nearly 5:1 and 10:1
on advertising.

What was Piper's reputation in the 60's and 70's compared to Cessna? Who was
up and down and around and around?



  #17  
Old January 15th 07, 02:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.


Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?


Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

  #18  
Old January 15th 07, 03:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 690
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

In a previous article, Bob Noel said:
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.


Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?


Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.


And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash.
-- Stephen Harris
  #19  
Old January 15th 07, 03:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 603
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.


Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?


Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.

True! AIR, _Marketing_ is the research end of things(i.e., identifying a
market niche), _Selling_ (Sales) is the advertising and promotion side.

Again, IIRC, Japan spent a lot more on RESEARCH, Detroit spent a fortune on
advertising, but made what THEY wanted to make and didn't give a damn about
what the consumers wanted. The rest, as they say, is history!


  #20  
Old January 15th 07, 03:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 603
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, Bob Noel said:
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?


Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.


And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.


There goes my new keyboard!!! :~)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Narrowing it down... Comanche? Douglas Paterson Owning 18 February 26th 06 01:51 AM
Cherokee Pilots Association Fly-In Just Gets Better and Better Jay Honeck Piloting 7 August 8th 05 07:18 PM
Comanche accident averted last evening [email protected] Piloting 23 April 13th 05 10:02 AM
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention Don Piloting 0 May 5th 04 08:14 PM
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention Don General Aviation 0 March 20th 04 03:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.